Store the sha1 hash of the password. Then, when the user inputs "open sesame", compare sha1("open sesame") to the stored hash. If they're the same, assume the user input the right password. (Other cryptographic hash functions will do, and you probably want to add salt, but that's the basic idea.)

Well yes, true, that's the basic idea. But as you probably also know, if you really want a secure system there's a lot more to it than just storing a hash along with a salt.

You'll now need to protect the storage where you keep your hashes, to prevent the evildoer from overwriting your hash with a value of his own choosing.

You'll also need to protect the code accessing the storage, as well as every piece of code along the path, to ensure that the evildoer doesn't shortcut the authentication.

It doesn't exactly make your life any easier that we're talking about Windows 95 here. All jokes aside, I sincerely doubt that this would even be possible without a complete rewrite of the OS.

But yes, if you are on a system that gives you all that you need for free without adding to the complexity of your code then by all means, go for the secure solution.

For instance, the windows 95 screen saver password (at most 14 characters) was stored in the registry, xor'ed with a fixed key of length 14. Probably a const char screen_saver_xor_pad[14] = [...], "safely" hidden away in some undisclosed source code. Security by obscurity.

Storing passwords securely is anything but trivial, and in almost all other situations I'd suggest a slightly more advanced approach. In this case however I'd say that the simple XOR does the job quite well: It ensures that an evildoer glancing over your shoulder while you browse your registry won't be able to snoop your password, as memorizing a sequence of 28 semi-random hexadecimal digits is quite a lot harder than memorizing say 'Open Sesame'. Yes, it's hopelessly insecure if the evildoer gains access to your box, but in that case loosing your screen saver password should be the least of your worries.

A significant part of the job of designing secure systems is identifying when it's necessary to roll in the big cannons.

I'm not too sure that we disagree on anything at all here. I just thought it interesting that you brought up an example where security through obscurity was plenty sufficient.

[...] modern and useful layers of abstraction and code checking that were already in Java (typed delegates, generic types, garbage collection, etc)

I'm not trying to start a war here, but Java delegates?

Also Java's Generics by Type Erasure are nothing more than compiler inserted typecasts - I imagine Sun wanted to maintain compatibility with existing JREs - whereas C#/CLI generics are the real thing.

Java is still there.

True, and Java will probably be around longer than any of us, but while C# seems to be alive and thriving (LINQ, lambda-expressions, inferred types), it looks to me as if Java has lost much of its momentum.

Then your Firefox installation has somehow gotten borked.

On a fully patched XP system with Firefox 3.0.11 set as the default browser Explorer launches FF as it should.

Actually, I just checked on a second system, same thing. So, it's at most a 33% lie ;-)

I want a file browser for examining my filesystem so I can copy, move, delete, or rename them, or open them with a specified application.

Actually that's what you're getting. Explorer != IE.

If you type a URL in the address bar of Explorer, it'll launch your default browser, and not IE as the GPP wrongly claims.

XP still opens IE when you type a url into the adress bar of Explorer

Only if you've set IE as your default browser.

Mininova and other websites took over as the leading Torrent hubs.

Just to correct an all too common misunderstanding, Mininova really cannot be compared to The Pirate Bay.

Mininova is nothing more than an index. Mininova does not operate a tracker. The majority (if not all) of the torrent files found at Mininova would be pretty useless if the Pirate Bay servers weren't around to do the heavy lifting.

The torrent network really isn't as decentralized as most people seem to think; torrent traffic would take a major hit if the servers at TPB were shut down ...at least for a while.